Contingencies

As a global company serving consumers in more than 200 countries and territories, the Company is routinely subject to a wide variety of legal proceedings. These include disputes relating to intellectual property, contracts, product liability, marketing, advertising, foreign exchange controls, antitrust and trade regulation, as well as labor and employment, environmental and tax matters. Management proactively reviews and monitors the Company’s exposure to, and the impact of, environmental matters. The Company is party to various environmental matters and, as such, may be responsible for all or a portion of the cleanup, restoration and post-closure monitoring of several sites.

As a matter of course, the Company is regularly audited by the IRS and other tax authorities around the world in countries where it conducts business. In this regard, the IRS has completed its examination of the Company’s federal income tax returns through 2005. Estimated incremental tax payments related to potential disallowances for subsequent periods are not expected to be material.

The Company establishes accruals for loss contingencies when it has determined that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances.

The Company also determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that a loss is reasonably possible and it is able to determine such estimates. For those matters disclosed below, the Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $250 (based on current exchange rates). The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from the matters in question. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of loss contingencies arising from the matters discussed herein will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or its ongoing results of operations or cash flows. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties noted above, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular quarter or year.

Brazilian Matters

In 2001, the Central Bank of Brazil sought to impose a substantial fine on the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary based on alleged foreign exchange violations in connection with the financing of the Company’s 1995 acquisition of the Kolynos oral care business from Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) (the Seller), as described in the Company’s Form 8-K dated January 10, 1995. The Company appealed the imposition of the fine to the Brazilian Monetary System Appeals Council (the Council), and on January 30, 2007, the Council decided the appeal in the Company’s favor, dismissing the fine entirely. However, certain tax and civil proceedings that began as a result of this Central Bank matter are still outstanding as described below.

The Brazilian internal revenue authority has disallowed interest deductions and foreign exchange losses taken by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary for certain years in connection with the financing of the Kolynos acquisition. The tax assessments with interest, at the current exchange rate, approximate $113. The Company has been disputing the disallowances by appealing the assessments within the internal revenue authority’s appellate process with the following results to date:


▪	In June 2005, the First Board of Taxpayers ruled in the Company’s favor and allowed all of the previously claimed deductions for 1996 through 1998. In March 2007, the First Board of Taxpayers ruled in the Company’s favor and allowed all of the previously claimed deductions for 1999 through 2001. The tax authorities appealed these decisions to the next administrative level.


▪	In August 2009, the First Taxpayers’ Council (the next and final administrative level of appeal) overruled the decisions of the First Board of Taxpayers, upholding the majority of the assessments, disallowing a portion of the assessments and remanding a portion of the assessments for further consideration by the First Board of Taxpayers.

The Company has filed a motion for reconsideration with the First Taxpayers’ Council and further appeals are available within the Brazilian federal courts. The Company intends to challenge these assessments vigorously. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel and other advisors, that the disallowances are without merit and that the Company should ultimately prevail on appeal, if necessary, in the Brazilian federal courts.

In 2002, the Brazilian Federal Public Attorney filed a civil action against the federal government of Brazil, Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda. (the Brazilian subsidiary of the Seller) and the Company, as represented by its Brazilian subsidiary, seeking to annul an April 2000 decision by the Brazilian Board of Tax Appeals that found in favor of the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary on the issue of whether it had incurred taxable capital gains as a result of the divestiture of Kolynos. The action seeks to make the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary jointly and severally liable for any tax due from the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the Company should ultimately prevail in this action. The Company intends to challenge this action vigorously.

In December 2005, the Brazilian internal revenue authority issued to the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary a tax assessment with interest and penalties of approximately $67, at the current exchange rate, based on a claim that certain purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by the subsidiary and their subsequent disposition during the period 2000 to 2001 were subject to a tax on foreign exchange transactions. The Company is disputing the assessment within the internal revenue authority’s administrative appeals process. In October 2007, the Second Board of Taxpayers, which has jurisdiction over these matters, ruled in favor of the internal revenue authority. In January 2008, the Company appealed this decision to the next administrative level. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the advice of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the tax assessment is without merit and that the Company should prevail on appeal either at the administrative level or, if necessary, in the Brazilian federal courts. The Company intends to challenge this assessment vigorously.

European Competition Matters

Since February 2006, the Company has learned that investigations relating to potential competition law violations involving the Company’s subsidiaries had been commenced by governmental authorities in a number of European countries and by the European Commission. The Company understands that many of these investigations also involve other consumer goods companies and/or retail customers. The status of the various pending matters is discussed below.

Fines have been imposed on the Company in the following matters, although the Company is appealing these fines:


▪	In December 2009, the Swiss competition law authority imposed a fine of $5 on the Company’s GABA subsidiary for alleged violations of restrictions on parallel imports into Switzerland. The Company is appealing the fine in the Swiss courts.


▪	In January 2010, the Spanish competition law authority found that four suppliers of shower gel had entered into an agreement regarding product down-sizing, for which Colgate’s Spanish subsidiary was fined $3. The Company is appealing the fine in the Spanish courts.


▪	In December 2010, the Italian competition law authority found that 16 consumer goods companies, including the Company’s Italian subsidiary, exchanged competitively sensitive information in the cosmetics sector, for which the Company’s Italian subsidiary was fined $3. The Company is appealing the fine in the Italian courts.

Currently, formal claims of violations, or statements of objections, are pending against the Company as follows:


▪	The French competition authority alleges agreements on pricing and promotion of heavy duty detergents among four consumer goods companies, including the Company’s French subsidiary.


▪	The French competition authority alleges violations of competition law by three pet food producers, including the Company’s Hill’s France subsidiary, focusing on exclusivity arrangements and parallel trade restrictions.


▪	The German competition authority alleges that 17 branded goods companies, including the Company’s German subsidiary, exchanged sensitive information related to the German market.

The Company has responded to each of these formal claims of violations. Investigations are ongoing in Belgium, France and Greece, but no formal claims of violations have been filed in these jurisdictions except in France as noted above.

Since December 31, 2010, the following matters have been resolved:


▪	In April 2011, the investigation by the European Commission was resolved with no formal claims of violations or decisions made against the Company. To the Company’s knowledge, there are no other investigations by the European Commission relating to potential competition law violations involving the Company or its subsidiaries.


▪	In May 2011, the Dutch competition authority closed its investigation and no decision was made against the Company or its Dutch subsidiary.

The Company’s policy is to comply with antitrust and competition laws and, if a violation of any such laws is found, to take appropriate remedial action and to cooperate fully with any related governmental inquiry. The Company has undertaken a comprehensive review of its selling practices and related competition law compliance in Europe and elsewhere and, where the Company has identified a lack of compliance, it has undertaken remedial action. Competition and antitrust law investigations often continue for several years and can result in substantial fines for violations that are found. Such fines, depending on the gravity and duration of the infringement as well as the value of the sales involved, have amounted, in some cases, to hundreds of millions of dollars. While the Company cannot predict the final financial impact of these competition law issues as these matters may change, the Company evaluates developments in these matters quarterly and accrues liabilities as and when appropriate.

ERISA Matters

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan, et al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants. Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. This action has not been certified as a class action as yet. The parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine whether the action can be settled. The Company and the Plan intend to contest this action vigorously should the parties be unable to reach a settlement.